West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Think Manuel!

 

That's not the comment I'm referring to.

What does that one mean?

Tom

 

A

It suggests there is a fair amount of cutting back and other work they need to do. I doubt the ORR has taken their eyes off the line just yet.

 

I should mention I'm already wearing trenchcoat and tin hat, the door is open and engine running.

(Clears throat)

Now that WSSRT have stated their wish not to be a part of any new controlling charity, preferring to remain independent and focused on their specific objects, is there any reason, on paper at least, that WSRA couldn't morph into the lead charity and the plc allow itself to become a subsidiary? Seems a lot less trouble than having to set up new entities.

The parent could be renamed West Somerset Railway Trust and the offspring WSRT Promotions. No money need change hands and existing debts between the two could be written off. Could all be sorted during forthcoming AGMs. Just needs a short PDG meeting to agree in principle before putting the plan to members/shareholders.

As I don't do Fbook perhaps someone would be kind enough to mention this on the 'Friends of' page. Feel free to own the idea, no need to mention me by name.

Lo siento.

Gotta go......

 

Just don't mention borrasca in these parts at present.

 

Don't have to or don't want to?

 

The problem though is with the WSSRT not being part, how long before the old animosities flair up again? The PLC may very well not wish to be absorbed by what was the WSRA, given past animosities on that front and might well say, we agree to being absorbed by the WSSRT but not the former WSRA, what happens then?

 

WSSRT don't wish to run the Railway, so could continue in a similar way to other affiliated groups, as SDRT and DEPG do now. For simplification the S&D matter is assumed to be resolved in this scenario.

Granted Malcolm's gang might need to dig a hole to bung the worn out hatchets in first.

Is peace and harmony just a pipe dream? I sincerely hope not.

 

More to the point though the agreement of the PLC Shareholders is needed

 

This one agrees wholeheartedly. It's the WSSRT shareholding that would likely be decisive.

 

So I wonder why they accepted a seat on the Plc Board?

 

They didn't. An individual that also happens to be a WSSRT board member did.

 

I've not stated 53808 is not a useful locomotive that isn't well liked by crews etc. I don't see any reason why it should move elsewhere either.

I don't like the negativity towards the WSR on this thread. I am not a member or anything to do with the railway other than a visitor.

The railway is a sum of its parts. No loco, owning group or individual is bigger than a collective organisation. The same in anything, heritage railway, sports team or FTSE 100 company. Thanks for your service and see you around.

 

Couldn't give a damn if it does or not quite frankly. There's always gonna be locos available to replace it. It's out of ticket soon anyway.

 

I don't see negativity towards the WSR, just the plc managment for the decisions they are making at the moment.

If you accept the railway is the sum of its parts, and a significant number of those parts are under threat of being removed then surely you have to accept there might be an issue?

If other locos are always going to be available, what would you suggest as a suitable replacement for 88? That I suspect you will find very difficult to answer when you work out the criteria it has to meet, so I'm not expecting a reply

 

Yet the statements from both orgs made quite a mention of his Board position in the other org...


There's also a contradiction from those proclaiming that the current Board are the saviours of the WSR from the actions of the previous bad Boards, when the newest member was on the previous Board for 5 years, & only left 3 years ago.

They're not the only current member with a similar timeline, one of the 2018 appointees had only left the Board 2 years before, having been on it for more than 25 years.

 

Yes, I was disappointed at that, although have come to expect it from some quarters. An example of wishy washy self-governance from both boards involved. The new or revamped entities will need to avoid such tripe from outset.

Often such statements let slip an organisation's true intent and places their stated public stance in considerable doubt. Inevitably their future statements are then less respected. Slick PR it is not.

 

Barrie, the comment that follows is from me personally, and is not in any way WSRA ‘policy’.

This is an opportunity for generational change and to correct an unfortunate structure which dates from before 1976. It must not be seen, or rather it must be seen not to be a ‘power grab’ by anyone but must be a change seen to be right by the overwhelming majority of WSR supporters and stakeholders. It must not, IMHO, be same old same old ‘in drag’.

It might be appropriate to re-use some part of the existing structure (that almost certainly HAS to be done with the WSR plc). If the re-cycling were to include the WSRA I would stand down as part as of the process and IF there was a place in the new structure where I thought I could make a contribution it would have to be as a result of an open transparent process which tests ability, experience, propriety, team working and the like.

I know there are able folk who would not want to serve in the present structure. We must ensure that the very best folk available WANT to serve in any new WSR structure.

Who could say otherwise?

Robin

 

Robin,

I agree absolutely. Reshaping the Association to fit a new role almost certainly wouldn't be successful, even if it were theoretically possible. The plc is, as you rightly imply, a different matter entirely.

In some ways it's a shame WSSRT don't wish to be a part of any new lead charity entity. That potentially reduces the number of capable trustees that could serve on a new board. Conversely, whether WSRA is reconstituted or 'WSRT' is formed from scratch, the resulting board of trustees needs to be fit for purpose and that will require significant new blood, although should not necessarily bar all existing board members currently or previously serving the various organisations. There is value in continuity, something the current plc might be starting to realise.

I do think the WSR as a whole would benefit from having less board seats to fill but perhaps that's not a practical aspiration.

The most important thing now is to encourage momentum. I do hope the plc keep to their word and commence shareholder consultation soon, although I would prefer them to engage with others through PDG initially, but not if that means waiting until late September for further progress. The ball is firmly with the plc. I wonder who is going to be appointed there as project lead?

 

The Problem though Barrie will be, Can the PLC be trusted to be honest players in this endeavour ? and will the temptation on both fronts be too tempting to resist reopening old wounds ? lets assume that the WSRA stipulates that the S& D Trust has to remain a part of the family, that might be a step too far for the plc, to accept and again there's the matter of trust can everyone get round the table and leave their ego's at the door?
Ideally both charities should have been involved in any reshaping, as it has to be an pan railway attempt, and not left to just others, if anything, it shows the Steam trust in a bad light, is that why a board member was invited to join the PLC board because they as an organisation won't rock the boat? despite their share holding ?